is separate from the acceptability
dimension.
Figure 3 shows the items pertaining
to aesthetics that were part of the
original item pool but did not load
consistently across devices in the factor
analyses and thus do not appear in the
WEAR Scale. While these items have
not been tested as serving as their own
scale for the construct of aesthetics,
they would be a sound starting point
for the development of such a measure.
Such a measure might also reveal sub-dimensions (or factors) in the same way
that the WEAR Scale revealed a two-factor structure.
A CHANGING SOCIAL WORLD
Whether reciting Shakespeare on
stage or putting on a wearable, you
are engaging in a performance—“an
intentional action executed by an
individual with the awareness of
spectators” [ 5]. As we rush through our
daily lives, it is easy to forget how much
and how frequently we are weighing
the reactions of others as we present
ourselves to the world. Technology has
been increasingly permeating our lives
for decades. Smartphones, while usually
not attached to the body, have certainly
impacted our desires and fears. Visible
body-worn devices will become a
greater part of our social world and
who we are. How will they change your
performance on life’s stage?
Endnotes
1. Goffman, E. The Presentation of the Self in
Everyday Life. Penguin, 1990.
2. Worsley, H. 100 Ideas That Changed
Fashion. Laurence King, 2011.
3. Kelly, N. The WEAR Scale: Development
of a measure of the social acceptability of a
wearable device. 2016.
4. DeVellis, R.F. Scale Development: Theory
and Applications. Sage Publications, 2012.
5. Rico, J. and Brewster, S. Usable gestures
for mobile interfaces: Evaluating social
acceptability. Proc. of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. ACM, 2010, 887–896.
Norene Kelly earned a Ph.D. in human-computer interaction from Iowa State
University in 2016. Her dissertation developing
the WEAR Scale won a Research Excellence
Award. Currently she works from her home
office in Des Moines, Iowa, as a UX scientist for
UEGroup, a Silicon Valley firm specializing in
designing breakthrough user experiences.
→
norene@uegroup.com
WEARscale.com
W
cause as a driving distraction was the
most prominent factor in making them
socially unacceptable. On the other
hand, the highest-scoring item was This
device could help people—respondents
thought that both Watch and Glass
had the potential to be beneficial. This
data provides insight for the wearables
industry: If your device is a driving
distraction, know that’s going to be
problematic for its social acceptance;
and if your device helps people,
then that will be a boon to its social
acceptance.
An upcoming study will measure
three more wearables, with some extra
twists, such as altering the description
and color between groups to test the
effect on social acceptability. Also,
we’ll be comparing responses from
Midwesterners versus people in Silicon
Valley to assess regional differences.
Such ongoing research will
work toward establishing industry
standards. This will help to create
baselines for both the two factors
and the individual items, which will
then aid researchers and designers in
using the scale to inform design. For
example, if the item This device would
enhance the wearer’s image scored low,
then an important follow-up with
survey respondents would be to find
out why. It may be the appearance of
the wearable itself, or it may be the
placement on the body, or it could
even be the name of the device. The
WEAR Scale is essentially a homing
tool that can guide the development of
a wearable toward social acceptance.
ASPIRATIONS AND FEARS
So, back to the world being a stage
and us performers. When we alter
our bodies or put something on our
bodies, what are the main concepts
we are thinking about when we are
weighing whether we are acceptable
for the social world we inhabit? The
exploratory factor analysis identified
two such concepts—that is, the 14
questions clustered around two factors
(Figure 2). Eight of the questions
pointed to the notion that in our
performance on life’s stage, we have
aspirations. Thus, an acceptable
wearable aligns with those aspirations
and is consistent with our self-image.
Just as with any clothing, accessory,
or body modification, a wearable
S
is a form of communication by the
wearer that is directed at other people.
The wearer wants the device to be
consistent with her or his self-image
and to receive a positive reaction
from one’s “tribe.” The other six
questions were about fears. In other
words, an acceptable device does not
raise privacy issues, is not considered
inappropriate, does not cause others to
perceive the wearer as rude, and does
not cause offense or harm.
BUT WHAT ABOUT LOOKS?
The factor analysis that produced
the WEAR Scale suggests that the
aesthetic dimension of acceptability is
its own construct, separate from social
acceptability and deserving of its own
measure. So while items addressing
aesthetics did not make the final
WEAR Scale, some of the 14 items do
indirectly address how the wearable
looks. For example, This device would
enhance the wearer’s image does not
explicitly ask whether the device is
fashionable, but it does assess a similar
concept: Is it an improvement to the
wearer’s image?
Yet aren’t fashion, aesthetics, and
style important in gauging the social
acceptability of a wearable? Well,
imagine shining silver headwear that
looks like a museum piece; it is a thing
of beauty, but does that mean you’ll
wear it to the grocery store, that it is
useful and feels like “you”? Or imagine
a black wristband; it may have zero
aesthetic appeal, but it would not make
anyone uneasy and may be considered
just plain or boring rather than
unfashionable. Because a wearable can
be fashionable but socially awkward,
or stylistically unpleasing but socially
neutral, the aesthetic dimension
T
DOI: 10.1145/3137093 COPYRIGHT HELD BY AUTHOR. PUBLICATION RIGHTS LICENSED TO ACM. $15.00
Aesthetics Items
1. This device is aesthetically pleasing.
2. This device is stylish.
3. This device is goofy. (R)
4. This device is fashionable.
5. This device is sleek, not clunky.
6. This device might be considered
disfiguring to its wearer. (R)
7. This device seems to offer options for
personalization, so that everyone is
not wearing the “same thing.”
Figure 3. Aesthetic considerations
(not included in the WEAR Scale).